This pic of a Venezuelan street sums up Socialism perfectly.

[MarathonMike]

18% of the budget goes to the military, moron.

That is not at all true that the military only gets 18%.

The government itself only admits to 54%, but it is actually much larger because almost all of the national debt and its interest is really all military, and also most social services is really VA or GIBill and is also defense.

Military Spending in the United States

When someone tries to claim a low figure, like 20%, that is by adding things like the national debt and Social Security to the national budget, and they are not. The national budget is only supposed to include discretionary spending, not mandated programs that are self financing, like social security.

So the reality is that military spending is actually more like 75% of our tax money.

That's horseshit. I go by how much money of mine they are taking from me.

They are taking a lot more money from you than you realize.
For example, the military spending when we illegally invaded Iraq cost us trillion that we have not yet paid off.
That means we not only do not even pay off the interest each year, but the military caused the housing collapse that caused millions of US citizens to lose their homes.
So the national debt grows and the US continually get more poor, paying countries like China who finance our military spending.

"but the military caused the housing collapse"

There is absolutely no doubt that the trillions Bush borrowed for his military ventures are what caused the housing market collapse.
In fact, it cause a world wide recession.

Holy cow, you are not exactly bothered by historical facts are you?

 

[bripat9643]

See that garbage littering the street? That is Venezuelan money! That's right it is worthless trash. Think of that picture as Stage 4 Socialism. Bernie Sanders is Stage 1.

View attachment 305465

socialism is thriving in the US 50 some percent of the government budget goes to the armed forces? President spends billions on his golf trips and his family vacations, and so much more. but I have to admit we need space force.

18% of the budget goes to the military, moron.

That is not at all true that the military only gets 18%.

The government itself only admits to 54%, but it is actually much larger because almost all of the national debt and its interest is really all military, and also most social services is really VA or GIBill and is also defense.

Military Spending in the United States

When someone tries to claim a low figure, like 20%, that is by adding things like the national debt and Social Security to the national budget, and they are not. The national budget is only supposed to include discretionary spending, not mandated programs that are self financing, like social security.

So the reality is that military spending is actually more like 75% of our tax money.

How is the national debt all military, because you wish it were true?

The national debt is all military because it is illegal to run a debt annually unless there is an emergency appropriation.
And that only happens in time of war or military requests, like the Invasion of Iraq and the trillions Bush requested for it.
If you look it up, you will see that the national debt is all military.
SDI was the closest to not being the military, but that actually was a cold war move to bankrupt the Soviet Union when they tried to keep up with SDI military spending.
Just look at the graph, and you will see that there has never been any significant national debt EXCEPT for military spending.

The blip around 1990 was SDI, intended to bankrupt the USSR in a space spending war.
The current accelerating climb was Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, etc.

I marvel at the logical contortions you go through to justify your fantasies.

 

[Rigby5]

Socialism rises from the failure of capitalism to serve the people. In Venezuela capitalism did not serve the people at all. Socialism, in their case, didn't do a good job either. It's not like anyone can say they have ever had it good. Their socialism looks a lot like their capitalism did. There's still rich people who own everything, nothing gets done in the name of the people and there are no institutions anyone can trust.

Sure, quit being a failure and capitalism will treat you well.

Never.
Capitalism is pure profit motive, which include murder, robbery, slavery, or anything else you can to in order to gain control over more money.
It is always inherently corrupt, dangerous, and never a reliable way to run anything.
The only good thing about capitalism is that it promotes innovation.
So capitalism should be tolerated, in very carefully controlled areas.

 

[Rigby5]

Socialism rises from the failure of capitalism to serve the people. In Venezuela capitalism did not serve the people at all. Socialism, in their case, didn't do a good job either. It's not like anyone can say they have ever had it good. Their socialism looks a lot like their capitalism did. There's still rich people who own everything, nothing gets done in the name of the people and there are no institutions anyone can trust.

Bullshit! No experiment with socialism have ever succeed. Every damn last one of them ended in complete failure. Socialism has never worked and it can never work or suceed because it flies in the face of both mother nature and human nature. It's just that simple. The only lazy ass dumbshits and under achivers who are ever for it are the very reason it can never suceed.

Socialism is only as good as the people who run the country. It tends to preserve whatever corruption existed before it is imposed. The point here is that socialism is a reaction, perhaps an overreaction, to a greedy ruthless plutocracy. It is rarely any better and it never just comes out of nowhere.

Dead wrong. Socialism fails despite the quality of the people who suffer under it because it flies in the face of human nature. Socialism is a con that demagogues use to gain power. It comes out of the lust for power. No one ever said it came out of nowhere.

You clearly have no idea at all what socialism is or even what human nature it.
The success of early primates when they came down from the trees, was socialism.
They had no fangs, claws, speed, or armor.
The only reason they survived, is that like Meerkats, they were willing to die in the defense of each other.

While it is true demagogues have misused the word socialism in order to gain power, that does not at all condemn real socialism in any way.

Socialism is human nature, and the only way any human society can survive.
Just ask yourself how any family, tribe, or country could ever survive if the profit motive was the only motivation?

 

[Rigby5]

socialism is thriving in the US 50 some percent of the government budget goes to the armed forces? President spends billions on his golf trips and his family vacations, and so much more. but I have to admit we need space force.

18% of the budget goes to the military, moron.

That is not at all true that the military only gets 18%.

The government itself only admits to 54%, but it is actually much larger because almost all of the national debt and its interest is really all military, and also most social services is really VA or GIBill and is also defense.

Military Spending in the United States

When someone tries to claim a low figure, like 20%, that is by adding things like the national debt and Social Security to the national budget, and they are not. The national budget is only supposed to include discretionary spending, not mandated programs that are self financing, like social security.

So the reality is that military spending is actually more like 75% of our tax money.

It's 18% of the budget, moron. The discretionary budget is irrelevant. The entire budget is discretionary. Douchbags like you try to make the number seem bigger by comparing it with the so-called discretionary budget. What makes you believe the defense budget is "discretionary?"

You are not making any sense at all.
First of all, you are not supposed to include non-discretionary things like Social Security because they not only mandated by law and not up for any vote, but they are self funding. It would make no sense to include something that actually generates a surplus, like Social Security did for half a century, into the budget.
There are lots of things that are not supposed to be included in the national budget, because they are mandatory and can not be voted on. The interest on the national debt is another. By law that is supposed to just be paid, without any debate.
That fact that the ENTIRE national debt has also always been for the military actually makes leaving the national debt out hide military spending.

But all military spending other than on the national debt interest payments ARE discretionary.
We could survive quite well without spending a cent on the military.
The founders wanted a volunteer, citizen soldier military, and that would have been best.
It also would have been totally funded by the states and not the federal government.

Who says they are not supposed to be included? No one but a bunch of leftist douchebags. The budget is the budget. The game of including some parts and not others is propaganda.

Everyone has always said that the annual budget only includes discretionary expenditures.
First you all the mandatory expenditures out, and what you have left is the discretionary money you have a choice about how can be spent.
You don't have any choice about mandatory spending, so there is no point in putting it into an annual budget to be debated.
Mandatory spending can't be debated because it is already mandated by law.
The fact the federal budget only includes discretionary spending is dictated by law.

 

[depotoo]

See that garbage littering the street? That is Venezuelan money! That's right it is worthless trash. Think of that picture as Stage 4 Socialism. Bernie Sanders is Stage 1.

View attachment 305465

socialism is thriving in the US 50 some percent of the government budget goes to the armed forces? President spends billions on his golf trips and his family vacations, and so much more. but I have to admit we need space force.

18% of the budget goes to the military, moron.

That is not at all true that the military only gets 18%.

The government itself only admits to 54%, but it is actually much larger because almost all of the national debt and its interest is really all military, and also most social services is really VA or GIBill and is also defense.

Military Spending in the United States

When someone tries to claim a low figure, like 20%, that is by adding things like the national debt and Social Security to the national budget, and they are not. The national budget is only supposed to include discretionary spending, not mandated programs that are self financing, like social security.

So the reality is that military spending is actually more like 75% of our tax money.

Wrong

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...g.png/1200px-Federal_Revenue_and_Spending.png
Deficit reduction in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism rises from the failure of capitalism to serve the people. In Venezuela capitalism did not serve the people at all. Socialism, in their case, didn't do a good job either. It's not like anyone can say they have ever had it good. Their socialism looks a lot like their capitalism did. There's still rich people who own everything, nothing gets done in the name of the people and there are no institutions anyone can trust.

Bullshit! No experiment with socialism have ever succeed. Every damn last one of them ended in complete failure. Socialism has never worked and it can never work or suceed because it flies in the face of both mother nature and human nature. It's just that simple. The only lazy ass dumbshits and under achivers who are ever for it are the very reason it can never suceed.

Socialism is only as good as the people who run the country. It tends to preserve whatever corruption existed before it is imposed. The point here is that socialism is a reaction, perhaps an overreaction, to a greedy ruthless plutocracy. It is rarely any better and it never just comes out of nowhere.

Dead wrong. Socialism fails despite the quality of the people who suffer under it because it flies in the face of human nature. Socialism is a con that demagogues use to gain power. It comes out of the lust for power. No one ever said it came out of nowhere.

You clearly have no idea at all what socialism is or even what human nature it.
The success of early primates when they came down from the trees, was socialism.
They had no fangs, claws, speed, or armor.
The only reason they survived, is that like Meerkats, they were willing to die in the defense of each other.

While it is true demagogues have misused the word socialism in order to gain power, that does not at all condemn real socialism in any way.

Socialism is human nature, and the only way any human society can survive.
Just ask yourself how any family, tribe, or country could ever survive if the profit motive was the only motivation?

So socialism means living like a wild animal? I won't argue with that. Civilized humans prefer not to live like that.

Socialism is the opposite of human nature. Humans don't work without expecting something comparable in return.

What does it mean for the profit motive to be the only motivation? Do you mean a mother would only feed her child if she got something in return? She does. It's called love.

 

[occupied]

Socialism rises from the failure of capitalism to serve the people. In Venezuela capitalism did not serve the people at all. Socialism, in their case, didn't do a good job either. It's not like anyone can say they have ever had it good. Their socialism looks a lot like their capitalism did. There's still rich people who own everything, nothing gets done in the name of the people and there are no institutions anyone can trust.

Bullshit! No experiment with socialism have ever succeed. Every damn last one of them ended in complete failure. Socialism has never worked and it can never work or suceed because it flies in the face of both mother nature and human nature. It's just that simple. The only lazy ass dumbshits and under achivers who are ever for it are the very reason it can never suceed.

That is silly because there have been lots of experiments in socialism in the US, like WI, and they all were extremely successful.
It is the capitalism of Stalinism that failed.
But that was never remotely socialist.
To be socialist, the planning and profit sharing has to be collaborative, cooperative, and communal.
Stalinism was never any of these, but was capitalism of a wealthy elite.

You do realize that capitalists, like you with socialism, blame failures on impure perversions of their perfect ideology? Economic systems are inherently corrupt because they reward ruthlessness no matter what the underlying ideology. The secret to success seems to be a mix of both socialism and capitalism backed up with strong laws and representative democracy.

 

[Rigby5]

That is not at all true that the military only gets 18%.

The government itself only admits to 54%, but it is actually much larger because almost all of the national debt and its interest is really all military, and also most social services is really VA or GIBill and is also defense.

Military Spending in the United States

When someone tries to claim a low figure, like 20%, that is by adding things like the national debt and Social Security to the national budget, and they are not. The national budget is only supposed to include discretionary spending, not mandated programs that are self financing, like social security.

So the reality is that military spending is actually more like 75% of our tax money.

That's horseshit. I go by how much money of mine they are taking from me.

They are taking a lot more money from you than you realize.
For example, the military spending when we illegally invaded Iraq cost us trillion that we have not yet paid off.
That means we not only do not even pay off the interest each year, but the military caused the housing collapse that caused millions of US citizens to lose their homes.
So the national debt grows and the US continually get more poor, paying countries like China who finance our military spending.

"but the military caused the housing collapse"

There is absolutely no doubt that the trillions Bush borrowed for his military ventures are what caused the housing market collapse.
In fact, it cause a world wide recession.

Holy cow, you are not exactly bothered by historical facts are you?

The housing that started to fail at the beginning of the housing crisis, like in 2007, had been paying their mortgage payments for years. So it was NOT from people over extending to buy homes they could not afford.

 

[bripat9643]

18% of the budget goes to the military, moron.

That is not at all true that the military only gets 18%.

The government itself only admits to 54%, but it is actually much larger because almost all of the national debt and its interest is really all military, and also most social services is really VA or GIBill and is also defense.

Military Spending in the United States

When someone tries to claim a low figure, like 20%, that is by adding things like the national debt and Social Security to the national budget, and they are not. The national budget is only supposed to include discretionary spending, not mandated programs that are self financing, like social security.

So the reality is that military spending is actually more like 75% of our tax money.

It's 18% of the budget, moron. The discretionary budget is irrelevant. The entire budget is discretionary. Douchbags like you try to make the number seem bigger by comparing it with the so-called discretionary budget. What makes you believe the defense budget is "discretionary?"

You are not making any sense at all.
First of all, you are not supposed to include non-discretionary things like Social Security because they not only mandated by law and not up for any vote, but they are self funding. It would make no sense to include something that actually generates a surplus, like Social Security did for half a century, into the budget.
There are lots of things that are not supposed to be included in the national budget, because they are mandatory and can not be voted on. The interest on the national debt is another. By law that is supposed to just be paid, without any debate.
That fact that the ENTIRE national debt has also always been for the military actually makes leaving the national debt out hide military spending.

But all military spending other than on the national debt interest payments ARE discretionary.
We could survive quite well without spending a cent on the military.
The founders wanted a volunteer, citizen soldier military, and that would have been best.
It also would have been totally funded by the states and not the federal government.

Who says they are not supposed to be included? No one but a bunch of leftist douchebags. The budget is the budget. The game of including some parts and not others is propaganda.

Everyone has always said that the annual budget only includes discretionary expenditures.
First you all the mandatory expenditures out, and what you have left is the discretionary money you have a choice about how can be spent.
You don't have any choice about mandatory spending, so there is no point in putting it into an annual budget to be debated.
Mandatory spending can't be debated because it is already mandated by law.
The fact the federal budget only includes discretionary spending is dictated by law.

"Everyone" says that? You mean your Marxist friends say that.,

 

[Rigby5]

socialism is thriving in the US 50 some percent of the government budget goes to the armed forces? President spends billions on his golf trips and his family vacations, and so much more. but I have to admit we need space force.

18% of the budget goes to the military, moron.

That is not at all true that the military only gets 18%.

The government itself only admits to 54%, but it is actually much larger because almost all of the national debt and its interest is really all military, and also most social services is really VA or GIBill and is also defense.

Military Spending in the United States

When someone tries to claim a low figure, like 20%, that is by adding things like the national debt and Social Security to the national budget, and they are not. The national budget is only supposed to include discretionary spending, not mandated programs that are self financing, like social security.

So the reality is that military spending is actually more like 75% of our tax money.

How is the national debt all military, because you wish it were true?

The national debt is all military because it is illegal to run a debt annually unless there is an emergency appropriation.
And that only happens in time of war or military requests, like the Invasion of Iraq and the trillions Bush requested for it.
If you look it up, you will see that the national debt is all military.
SDI was the closest to not being the military, but that actually was a cold war move to bankrupt the Soviet Union when they tried to keep up with SDI military spending.
Just look at the graph, and you will see that there has never been any significant national debt EXCEPT for military spending.

The blip around 1990 was SDI, intended to bankrupt the USSR in a space spending war.
The current accelerating climb was Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, etc.

I marvel at the logical contortions you go through to justify your fantasies.

Do you see national debt that is NOT military spending?
How could there ever be any, except maybe something like Katrina, because any deficit like that requires a special congressional dispensation. And it is almost always only for the military that Congress will do that.
Bush asked for and got trillions for his Mideast wars.
That is what contracted the money supply world wide, and not only caused the US housing crisis, but a world wide recession that harmed Greece, Spain, Iceland, etc.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism rises from the failure of capitalism to serve the people. In Venezuela capitalism did not serve the people at all. Socialism, in their case, didn't do a good job either. It's not like anyone can say they have ever had it good. Their socialism looks a lot like their capitalism did. There's still rich people who own everything, nothing gets done in the name of the people and there are no institutions anyone can trust.

Bullshit! No experiment with socialism have ever succeed. Every damn last one of them ended in complete failure. Socialism has never worked and it can never work or suceed because it flies in the face of both mother nature and human nature. It's just that simple. The only lazy ass dumbshits and under achivers who are ever for it are the very reason it can never suceed.

That is silly because there have been lots of experiments in socialism in the US, like WI, and they all were extremely successful.
It is the capitalism of Stalinism that failed.
But that was never remotely socialist.
To be socialist, the planning and profit sharing has to be collaborative, cooperative, and communal.
Stalinism was never any of these, but was capitalism of a wealthy elite.

You do realize that capitalists, like you with socialism, blame failures on impure perversions of their perfect ideology? Economic systems are inherently corrupt because they reward ruthlessness no matter what the underlying ideology. The secret to success seems to be a mix of both socialism and capitalism backed up with strong laws and representative democracy.

Utter horseshit. The failure of any system is determined by the quantity of socialism in it.

 

[Rigby5]

Socialism rises from the failure of capitalism to serve the people. In Venezuela capitalism did not serve the people at all. Socialism, in their case, didn't do a good job either. It's not like anyone can say they have ever had it good. Their socialism looks a lot like their capitalism did. There's still rich people who own everything, nothing gets done in the name of the people and there are no institutions anyone can trust.

Bullshit! No experiment with socialism have ever succeed. Every damn last one of them ended in complete failure. Socialism has never worked and it can never work or suceed because it flies in the face of both mother nature and human nature. It's just that simple. The only lazy ass dumbshits and under achivers who are ever for it are the very reason it can never suceed.

Socialism is only as good as the people who run the country. It tends to preserve whatever corruption existed before it is imposed. The point here is that socialism is a reaction, perhaps an overreaction, to a greedy ruthless plutocracy. It is rarely any better and it never just comes out of nowhere.

Dead wrong. Socialism fails despite the quality of the people who suffer under it because it flies in the face of human nature. Socialism is a con that demagogues use to gain power. It comes out of the lust for power. No one ever said it came out of nowhere.

You clearly have no idea at all what socialism is or even what human nature it.
The success of early primates when they came down from the trees, was socialism.
They had no fangs, claws, speed, or armor.
The only reason they survived, is that like Meerkats, they were willing to die in the defense of each other.

While it is true demagogues have misused the word socialism in order to gain power, that does not at all condemn real socialism in any way.

Socialism is human nature, and the only way any human society can survive.
Just ask yourself how any family, tribe, or country could ever survive if the profit motive was the only motivation?

So socialism means living like a wild animal? I won't argue with that. Civilized humans prefer not to live like that.

Socialism is the opposite of human nature. Humans don't work without expecting something comparable in return.

What does it mean for the profit motive to be the only motivation? Do you mean a mother would only feed her child if she got something in return? She does. It's called love.

You have that backwards.
Humans are much more socialist than any other wild animal.
The more civilized they are, the more socialist they are.
What do you expect in return for working to feed, cloth, and raise children?
When you get love in return, that is not profit of capitalism, but the whole point of socialism.
However socialism also is better at building things because cooperative, collaborative, and communal ventures always succeed better than individual ventures.

 

[Rigby5]

Socialism rises from the failure of capitalism to serve the people. In Venezuela capitalism did not serve the people at all. Socialism, in their case, didn't do a good job either. It's not like anyone can say they have ever had it good. Their socialism looks a lot like their capitalism did. There's still rich people who own everything, nothing gets done in the name of the people and there are no institutions anyone can trust.

Bullshit! No experiment with socialism have ever succeed. Every damn last one of them ended in complete failure. Socialism has never worked and it can never work or suceed because it flies in the face of both mother nature and human nature. It's just that simple. The only lazy ass dumbshits and under achivers who are ever for it are the very reason it can never suceed.

That is silly because there have been lots of experiments in socialism in the US, like WI, and they all were extremely successful.
It is the capitalism of Stalinism that failed.
But that was never remotely socialist.
To be socialist, the planning and profit sharing has to be collaborative, cooperative, and communal.
Stalinism was never any of these, but was capitalism of a wealthy elite.

You do realize that capitalists, like you with socialism, blame failures on impure perversions of their perfect ideology? Economic systems are inherently corrupt because they reward ruthlessness no matter what the underlying ideology. The secret to success seems to be a mix of both socialism and capitalism backed up with strong laws and representative democracy.

I'll buy that.
I would like less capitalism, but as long as there is capitalist competition out there in the world, we need a large degree of capitalism energy in our socialist society as well.
As long as it is carefully regulated.
But a socialist system has no problem in tolerating and regulating capitalist ventures.
While a capitalist society precludes any socialism at all and therefore is doomed to be so unjust that can never be remotely stable or survive.
Nor should it survive.
It would be feudal or slavery, at best.

 

[Oldstyle]

18% of the budget goes to the military, moron.

That is not at all true that the military only gets 18%.

The government itself only admits to 54%, but it is actually much larger because almost all of the national debt and its interest is really all military, and also most social services is really VA or GIBill and is also defense.

Military Spending in the United States

When someone tries to claim a low figure, like 20%, that is by adding things like the national debt and Social Security to the national budget, and they are not. The national budget is only supposed to include discretionary spending, not mandated programs that are self financing, like social security.

So the reality is that military spending is actually more like 75% of our tax money.

That's horseshit. I go by how much money of mine they are taking from me.

They are taking a lot more money from you than you realize.
For example, the military spending when we illegally invaded Iraq cost us trillion that we have not yet paid off.
That means we not only do not even pay off the interest each year, but the military caused the housing collapse that caused millions of US citizens to lose their homes.
So the national debt grows and the US continually get more poor, paying countries like China who finance our military spending.

"but the military caused the housing collapse"

There is absolutely no doubt that the trillions Bush borrowed for his military ventures are what caused the housing market collapse.
In fact, it cause a world wide recession.

The housing market collapsed because house values were grossly overinflated...due in large part from people getting loans that never should have gotten them. It has nothing to do with the wars in the Middle East! Where would you even get an idea like that?

 

[bripat9643]

Bullshit! No experiment with socialism have ever succeed. Every damn last one of them ended in complete failure. Socialism has never worked and it can never work or suceed because it flies in the face of both mother nature and human nature. It's just that simple. The only lazy ass dumbshits and under achivers who are ever for it are the very reason it can never suceed.

Socialism is only as good as the people who run the country. It tends to preserve whatever corruption existed before it is imposed. The point here is that socialism is a reaction, perhaps an overreaction, to a greedy ruthless plutocracy. It is rarely any better and it never just comes out of nowhere.

Dead wrong. Socialism fails despite the quality of the people who suffer under it because it flies in the face of human nature. Socialism is a con that demagogues use to gain power. It comes out of the lust for power. No one ever said it came out of nowhere.

You clearly have no idea at all what socialism is or even what human nature it.
The success of early primates when they came down from the trees, was socialism.
They had no fangs, claws, speed, or armor.
The only reason they survived, is that like Meerkats, they were willing to die in the defense of each other.

While it is true demagogues have misused the word socialism in order to gain power, that does not at all condemn real socialism in any way.

Socialism is human nature, and the only way any human society can survive.
Just ask yourself how any family, tribe, or country could ever survive if the profit motive was the only motivation?

So socialism means living like a wild animal? I won't argue with that. Civilized humans prefer not to live like that.

Socialism is the opposite of human nature. Humans don't work without expecting something comparable in return.

What does it mean for the profit motive to be the only motivation? Do you mean a mother would only feed her child if she got something in return? She does. It's called love.

You have that backwards.
Humans are much more socialist than any other wild animal.
The more civilized they are, the more socialist they are.

Obviously wrong. Just look at Bees, Termites and Ants: perfect socialism. Would you want to be a worker in an ant colony? The minute you are no longer useful you are disposed of.

A whole lot of love there, eh?

What do you expect in return for working to feed, cloth, and raise children?
When you get love in return, that is not profit of capitalism, but the whole point of socialism.

Capitalism allows people to do what they want with what they have produced, like feeding their children. Under socialism the state decides, and your children may not be their priority.

However socialism also is better at building things because cooperative, collaborative, and communal ventures always succeed better than individual ventures.

Socialism is better at building things? You must be joking. Perhaps things like the great wall or they pyramids, but who built a moon rocket? Who invented the computer? Who invented the telephone, automobile, airplane, penicillin?

You live in a fantasy world.

 

[Rigby5]

That is not at all true that the military only gets 18%.

The government itself only admits to 54%, but it is actually much larger because almost all of the national debt and its interest is really all military, and also most social services is really VA or GIBill and is also defense.

Military Spending in the United States

When someone tries to claim a low figure, like 20%, that is by adding things like the national debt and Social Security to the national budget, and they are not. The national budget is only supposed to include discretionary spending, not mandated programs that are self financing, like social security.

So the reality is that military spending is actually more like 75% of our tax money.

It's 18% of the budget, moron. The discretionary budget is irrelevant. The entire budget is discretionary. Douchbags like you try to make the number seem bigger by comparing it with the so-called discretionary budget. What makes you believe the defense budget is "discretionary?"

You are not making any sense at all.
First of all, you are not supposed to include non-discretionary things like Social Security because they not only mandated by law and not up for any vote, but they are self funding. It would make no sense to include something that actually generates a surplus, like Social Security did for half a century, into the budget.
There are lots of things that are not supposed to be included in the national budget, because they are mandatory and can not be voted on. The interest on the national debt is another. By law that is supposed to just be paid, without any debate.
That fact that the ENTIRE national debt has also always been for the military actually makes leaving the national debt out hide military spending.

But all military spending other than on the national debt interest payments ARE discretionary.
We could survive quite well without spending a cent on the military.
The founders wanted a volunteer, citizen soldier military, and that would have been best.
It also would have been totally funded by the states and not the federal government.

Who says they are not supposed to be included? No one but a bunch of leftist douchebags. The budget is the budget. The game of including some parts and not others is propaganda.

Everyone has always said that the annual budget only includes discretionary expenditures.
First you all the mandatory expenditures out, and what you have left is the discretionary money you have a choice about how can be spent.
You don't have any choice about mandatory spending, so there is no point in putting it into an annual budget to be debated.
Mandatory spending can't be debated because it is already mandated by law.
The fact the federal budget only includes discretionary spending is dictated by law.

"Everyone" says that? You mean your Marxist friends say that.,

Here it is from our gov.

{...
Annual Funding Areas
The annual budget covers three spending areas:

• Federal agency funding, called discretionary spending—the area Congress sets annually. Discretionary spending typically accounts for around a third of all funding.
  
  
• Interest on the debt, which usually uses less than 10 percent of all funding
  
  
• Funding for Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits, and other spending required by law. This is called mandatory spending and typically uses over half of all funding.
  

...}

Budget of the U.S. Government | USAGov

There is no discretion on interest on the national debt or in mandatory spending.
So those are not what the president's proposal and congressional debate about.
They can only discuss and alter discretionary spending.

 

[depotoo]

That's horseshit. I go by how much money of mine they are taking from me.

They are taking a lot more money from you than you realize.
For example, the military spending when we illegally invaded Iraq cost us trillion that we have not yet paid off.
That means we not only do not even pay off the interest each year, but the military caused the housing collapse that caused millions of US citizens to lose their homes.
So the national debt grows and the US continually get more poor, paying countries like China who finance our military spending.

"but the military caused the housing collapse"

There is absolutely no doubt that the trillions Bush borrowed for his military ventures are what caused the housing market collapse.
In fact, it cause a world wide recession.

Holy cow, you are not exactly bothered by historical facts are you?

The housing that started to fail at the beginning of the housing crisis, like in 2007, had been paying their mortgage payments for years. So it was NOT from people over extending to buy homes they could not afford.

You can’t be serious? Really?
Subprime Mortgage Crisis | Federal Reserve History

 

[bripat9643]

It's 18% of the budget, moron. The discretionary budget is irrelevant. The entire budget is discretionary. Douchbags like you try to make the number seem bigger by comparing it with the so-called discretionary budget. What makes you believe the defense budget is "discretionary?"

You are not making any sense at all.
First of all, you are not supposed to include non-discretionary things like Social Security because they not only mandated by law and not up for any vote, but they are self funding. It would make no sense to include something that actually generates a surplus, like Social Security did for half a century, into the budget.
There are lots of things that are not supposed to be included in the national budget, because they are mandatory and can not be voted on. The interest on the national debt is another. By law that is supposed to just be paid, without any debate.
That fact that the ENTIRE national debt has also always been for the military actually makes leaving the national debt out hide military spending.

But all military spending other than on the national debt interest payments ARE discretionary.
We could survive quite well without spending a cent on the military.
The founders wanted a volunteer, citizen soldier military, and that would have been best.
It also would have been totally funded by the states and not the federal government.

Who says they are not supposed to be included? No one but a bunch of leftist douchebags. The budget is the budget. The game of including some parts and not others is propaganda.

Everyone has always said that the annual budget only includes discretionary expenditures.
First you all the mandatory expenditures out, and what you have left is the discretionary money you have a choice about how can be spent.
You don't have any choice about mandatory spending, so there is no point in putting it into an annual budget to be debated.
Mandatory spending can't be debated because it is already mandated by law.
The fact the federal budget only includes discretionary spending is dictated by law.

"Everyone" says that? You mean your Marxist friends say that.,

Here it is from our gov.

{...
Annual Funding Areas
The annual budget covers three spending areas:

• Federal agency funding, called discretionary spending—the area Congress sets annually. Discretionary spending typically accounts for around a third of all funding.
  
  
• Interest on the debt, which usually uses less than 10 percent of all funding
  
  
• Funding for Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits, and other spending required by law. This is called mandatory spending and typically uses over half of all funding.

...}

Budget of the U.S. Government | USAGov

There is no discretion on interest on the national debt or in mandatory spending.
So those are not what the president's proposal and congressional debate about.
They can only discuss and alter discretionary spending.

Why should I care what some bureaucrat sucking on the government tit has to say about the matter?

 

[Rigby5]

That is not at all true that the military only gets 18%.

The government itself only admits to 54%, but it is actually much larger because almost all of the national debt and its interest is really all military, and also most social services is really VA or GIBill and is also defense.

Military Spending in the United States

When someone tries to claim a low figure, like 20%, that is by adding things like the national debt and Social Security to the national budget, and they are not. The national budget is only supposed to include discretionary spending, not mandated programs that are self financing, like social security.

So the reality is that military spending is actually more like 75% of our tax money.

That's horseshit. I go by how much money of mine they are taking from me.

They are taking a lot more money from you than you realize.
For example, the military spending when we illegally invaded Iraq cost us trillion that we have not yet paid off.
That means we not only do not even pay off the interest each year, but the military caused the housing collapse that caused millions of US citizens to lose their homes.
So the national debt grows and the US continually get more poor, paying countries like China who finance our military spending.

"but the military caused the housing collapse"

There is absolutely no doubt that the trillions Bush borrowed for his military ventures are what caused the housing market collapse.
In fact, it cause a world wide recession.

The housing market collapsed because house values were grossly overinflated...due in large part from people getting loans that never should have gotten them. It has nothing to do with the wars in the Middle East! Where would you even get an idea like that?

Wrong.
If that were true, then people would still have been able to keep up their payments, and they could not.
Then prices would have greatly dropped, and they did not.
There were 2 main reasons, both caused by military spending.
The defaults were because their adjustable rate mortgage was based on British LIBOR, and that caused payments to almost double, due to the world wide shortage of credit, after Bush borrowed trillions.
And the defaults were due to job losses due to people in other countries not being able to afford US goods as much, causing job layoffs.